NO MATTER HOW SCANDALOUS THE ACTIVITIES OF MPs OF GREAT BRITAIN HAVE COME TO SEEM AND NO MATTER HOW BORING THE BRITISH POLITICS SEEM TO CERTAIN PEOPLE, IT CAN NEVER BE DENIED THAT THERE, WE HAVE THE BEST SEATED GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION EVER TO EXIST ON THIS PLANET EARTH, EVEN TO THIS POINT IN HUMAN HISTORY. MAYBE, THAT IS WHY THE NOISE IS SO RIFE: FOR WHEN YOU ARE THE BEST, PEOPLE EXPECT MORE. EVERY COUNTRY WOULD BE BETTER OFF MODELED IN THE MANNER OF THE U.K, ANYWAY YOU LOOK AT IT AS TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNANCE CAN NEVER FIND A STRONGER DEFINITION IN HUMAN TERMS. HOWEVER, THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. IF NOT, WHY THEN DO WE ALL LOVE THIS BLESSED PLACE? WHY DO PEOPLE COME AND NEVER WANT TO GO AGAIN DESPITE THEIR ORIGIN OR AFFLUENCE? IT IS BECAUSE WE ALL STAND IN AWE OF HOW WELL AND ORGANIZED THAT THE COUNTRY IS RUN THAT WE KNOW THAT IT IS THE IDEAL COPY TO FOLLOW: AN ALMOST PERFECT SOCIETY AS I SEE AND BELIEVE ME, NO ONE IS PERFECT. THERE IS NO COUNTRY WITHOUT THEIR OWN SQUABBLES AND CORRUPTION. PLEASE LET THE MATTER OF MPs SPENDING- EVEN AS MURKY AS ANYONE WOULD RIGHTLY ADMIT IT TO BE BE PUT TO REST AFTER THE APOLOGIES AND ANYTHING ELSE. LET THE POLITICIANS DUST THEIR SEATS AND FOCUS ON STIRRING THEIR NATIONAL ECONOMY AND POTENTIATING DOMESTIC EFFICIENCY. AND FINALLY FROM ME, I WOULD RATHER PREFER A BORING POLITICS THAN THE GLAMOROUS CAMPAIGNS THAT PRECEDES GREED AND WANTON FROM POLITICIANS WEARING WHITE-WASH AND FAKE GLOSS IN ALMOST ALL THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD AS WE ALL KNOW, BUT THAT THAT ENDURES PASSES THROUGH FIRE. IN ALL TRUTH, WE ALL SHOULD ADMIRE AND APPLAUD BRITISH POLITICS. IT IS A MODEL THAT SHOULD HALF OF THE WORLD ADOPT, TRULY, WE WILL BE LIVING IN A MORE JUST PLANET. NO MATTER HOW MUCH ONE WILL ARGUE AGAINST THIS WRITING, IN OUR MINDS, WE ALL KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE. YES, GREAT IS BRITAIN.

Once cannot but totally wholeheartedly disagree with some of your suggestions.

A fixed term parliament will only bring an American style election campaign, that gets longer and longer, and longer. Knowing the date of the next election produces lame-duck administrations. Tony Blair’s power evaporated when he gave the date he was to retire to head off on the rubber-chicken lecture circuit so he could satisfy Cherie’s rapacious desire for money. The unplanned, spontaneous short sharp UK elections, are much better in every way - cheaper and less annoying.

The UK is not unique. Most countries that inherited the UK parliamentary system still do not have fixed term limits.

Also, incumbent governments lose just as often in our system – in the US the main reason why seats and the White House change occupiers is due to term limits. Incumbents in America are very difficult to unseat – only when you have a disaster like the last 8 years does the house change hands. George Bush might still be president if he could have run a third term. You obviously don’t remember UK politics up until 1979 – when the House of Commons flip-flopped regularly.

A PR system of voting, though nice in theory, will bring about the disastrous sort of governments that Belgium, Italy and Israel have, with splinter groups holding the cards – paralysing the decision making process and holding everyone to ransom. When New Zealand daftly switched to a proportional system, it took them months to form a government. Of course some might say no government is a good thing, but…

The system of free press, confrontational debate, and transparency works.

That is the why this last ten days has been illuminating - and shown how Mr. Martin was clearly not up for the job (A bit like Gordon Brown.....).

British Style parliaments are still the best debating shops in the world. The House of Lords was even better until His Tonyness did away with its questioning his undemocratic control freak policy of sending people off to Brussels from party lists – rather than an individual elected by the people. Have you ever watched US congress at work – they never debate, some angry Congressman gets up and argues respecting the Second amendment with all the fury of gnat, and evoking God as his mentor, while the rest of congress snoozes and twitters away.

There are no challenges, nobody has to think on his feet, defend a position, or respond immediately. Debate doesn’t exist.

Parliament works. Just look at what happened this week. It’s like the British Empire, everyone forgets how horrible the alternative was. Just imagine what Britain would be like if it adopted a different model.

It wouldn’t even be entertaining.

And thank heavens the Queen is still there to advise, and if things really get out of hand, dissolve parliament and call an election, if she feels her elected representatives aren’t serving her people.

Throw away your political theory books and enjoy reality.

One can only wish this openness could be applied to the European Parliament with its chronic corruption and waste of taxpayer’s money at every level.

Now that we know politicians can't keep track of their accounting, forget when their mortgages are paid off, can't tell their first home from second, and need a consultant to change light bulbs or sofa cushions, would you still call on them to solve the Great-Depression-to-come?

The solution is not better government, but smaller government. Power and money is a heady mix that corrupts all who breathe in its vapours. This can only happen when people stop asking government to solve problems. Governments don't solve anything. They are there to grow like cancer.

They will seize any pretext to make themselves indispensable in the process. Recession? Financial crisis? Unemployment? Healthcare? Born without the urge to work? These are great opportunities for government to push their snout in and meddle.

I'd like to feel amazement at reading about such a scandal in Britain, but I can't. Even though it's healthy in my opinion such a mess come to light in order to produce swift retaliation.

Sleaze is everywhere in Europe, British case it's been just a splash prompted by the Blair's government hangover. Anyway, it's worrying the lack of clear alternatives in the tainted two-party system. Perhaps would be time to promote those politicians who were called as 'cromwellians' in the article. But that means activism of people & media against the current establishment.

I'm from Spain, where people eventually have lost any trust in their political class. We live in a perpetual lie, with media controlled by politicians whilst in the Parliament they hold an 'open tomb' dialectical battle, whilst the cases of corruption succeed one after another, being manipulated by government propaganda. If I were British I would maintain hope yet, but claiming in the street for justice, because real corruption burst into my country from Europe in a more dangerous way than H1N1 virus.

In response to Hawkchurch, I've to say in my opinion there isn't a problem in British political system such as there is in relation with the leadership of the main parties. What you say about turning Britain into a federal state has no sense historically & politically in the oldest parliamentary system of the world.

As I said in a previous comment, I'm a Spaniard. I'm going to put my country as example. We have big controversy, harder than in Britain, in some regions of our country about the self-determination of such territories (mainly Basque Country & Catalonia, although regionalism in Galicia has grown considerably in late years). Sheltered under the great commitment which permitted us to set up the 1978 Constitution, the monarchic & democratic Spain became a non-centralistic state despite having a central government. We haven't a federal state but a central government with most of its competences delegated to regional governments, even money administration, health & education. Which was apparently a good solution has been going to become a great trap for the citizens along the years.

Firstly because the regional governments make their own budgets according to local needs without taking account the interdependence of every region each other. That means also corruption spreads over the country hidden by inextricable lists of local business, terrain reevaluations etc. Each region compete against the others to have bigger assignment of money every year for wasting most of it, & the central government has each year more problems to balance the national budget. That means tax increment, bigger debt & not less important, a hypertrophied bureaucratic system which costs lots of money & turns inefficient public service. As you can guess, that money comes from contributors' budget.

Secondly, we have serious problems in education, because it's easier to manipulate a region than to manipulate a whole country; i.e. in the Basque Country, where exists a terrorist group blackmailing or even killing everyone who thinks different to them, regionalism has imposed itself since the 70's (not now after recent & historic socialist victory), putting as an obligation for working at Basques institutions the knowledge of Euskera (Basque language), which implies a clear disadvantage in relation with non-Basque Spaniards & even for many Basques. In the same way, they've manipulated the contents of History subject at school; they've marginalized progressively the use of Spanish in the schools & universities, setting up centres where only it's allowed to speak Basque; in Catalonia you can be fined by putting cartels at shops, restaurants etc. in Spanish instead of Catalan. In both regions either regional language or Spanish are both official according to the Constitution. Ignorance goes together with corruption, & these things eventually drive to totalitarianism.

And thirdly, added up to regional selfishness is the proportional system of voting (D'Hont method) in such a way that the votes of just one region are more valuable than votes from several regions, because of its population ratio, as well as it happens between big cities & smaller ones. Therefore corrupted & even pro-independence regional parties can determinate the configuration of the Parliament by the need that national parties have to form coalitions to obtain the absolute majority which is necessary to set up a government. We can't change it because it's needed to dissolve the Parliament & calling for a referendum to do a reform over Constitution, & no sane government has the will to commit suicide.

I hope having expressed enough reasons to show non-centralisation isn't necessarily good, much more in countries with unbalanced distribution of GDP within their regions. And having a Constitution written down in paper isn't a guarantee of commitment as regional policies over languages & budgets show in Spain. Following Thomas More opinion at "Utopia", commitments & treaties usually are the expression of a conflict behind. Britain doesn't need to write a Constitution having a solid state of rights & a strong parliamentary system. It's not a real need for the country of the social contract already defended by John Locke in the 17th century. I think British citizens haven't anything to demonstrate towards the world after so many years of steady democracy; just guilty MPs should be punished & expelled from political exercise. I don't like current British politicians on the top but I don't think British system is that bad either. Some people here try to kill flies by gunshots.

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall, it is disheartening to see that the mother of all parliaments has so egregiously shameed itself and by extension the people. No more can the UK stand with any moral authrority and lecture the developing world of transperency and good governance, when it has turned its back on the very principles it took such delight in naming and shaming others to follow. The parliamnet's on recourse was to oust and make a scapegoat of the Speaker and we they should all follow his example. We might as well look to Brussels for answers,SHAME ON YOU!!!

Growing up in a developing country and having got used to such incidents, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue of misappropriation of political expenses to fund personal necessities was brought up in my country.

I have always held that the politicians of developed countries in the west are completely immune to swindling and fraudery. This incident comes across as an opinion-changing moment for me.

I hope they soon put proper regulations in place that makes the spending a lot more transparent and subject to scrutiny if the need be.

The obvious thing that must come out of this sorry episode, is that, unless we are to have MPs who either have private means - the Tory squirearchy - or sponsorship, with all that that implies about independence, MPs have to be paid more. A fixed rate, and no second incomes from directorships or anything else, escalated by linkage to the senior civil service.

It's a nonsense when journalists paid more than MPs (and probably with a fat expense account too) interview MPs about their lifestyles and expenditure. (It would be interesting to see some of their expenses, especially those paid for via the BBC Tax!)

It must be remembered that none of the MPs pay and expenses amounts to much in comparison to say, Jonathan Ross (also paid out of the BBC Tax) and many a footballer.

And it has to be recognised that an MP has responsibilities both at Westminster and in their constituency, and needs to be paid accordingly. And that means more than a bachelor pad if we are ever to attract more women into Parliament. Again, another fixed rate, restricted to those beyond commuting distance, and similarly linked as above.

Beyond that, free travel to and from, and about, their constituencies: full stop.

We can now await the repayment of some degree of government borrowing, a few fraud cases, and careers ended.

The definitive solution to the issue of mutiple extra allowances for 2 homes is only a few years away. Once the white elephant of the London Olympics has passed in the summer of 2012 then there will be a ready supply, in the form of the athlete´s village, of decent accomodation within a short distance of Westminster and with excellent public transport links. Accomodation which the long suffering taxpayer has already funded.

Were such accomodation to be considered unbecoming by some MPs, actual or potential, then no doubt the tattered British economy will have been revived by then and they will be free to attempt find employment in this sector to suit their aspirations to upper middle class ease.

(my italics) ‘The bankers stole our money: but the MPs have stolen “the taxpayers’ money”. Instant uproar.
The bankers stole more. They didn’t fiddle a meagre £10,000 here & there. They got away, personally, with fortunes. They didn’t fiddle a mortgage; they fiddled millions of mortgages & then collected £7 or £8 million in “pensions” as their price for leaving the institutions they had wrecked.
They got the taxpayer to pay them to go. How is that not “stealing the taxpayers’ money” ?
Paying MPs is a form of public spending. When we are stupid enough to vote the Tories back in, our rage against MPs will be redirected by them on to every other form of public spending. The bankers will get away with it. The blow that should have fallen on them will be received instead by a handful of hapless prats who got their fingers in the petty cash. Result.
Our frustration with the bankers, our rage against the recession they caused, will be refocussed on that arch enemy of Toryism, public spending. Because MPs have been shown to be corrupt, all public services will be blackened by association, then cut: it will seem perfectly logical. The disadvantaged, their ranks swelled by hundreds of thousands of victims of the bankers, will be punished for the sins of the advantaged. As usual, ordinary people will be deftly turned into their own enemies. Fantastically elegant politics.’

Some where calling on the legality of using stolen information that was paid for? Too funny! Weren't these bunch of degenerates the same ones who openly applauded the german government forbpaying for stolen information from a lichtenstien bank? And then southtbto obtain the information themselves? Duplicitous idiots who all deserve a clean out both physically and morally.

The behaviour emerging from Parliament is seriously abusing our unique Constitutional system and heritage.
If questions are now being asked at Buckingham Palace, then surely the fast way forward now is a newly elected Parliament with a new Speaker and a transparent expenses system, based solely on genuine costs incurred in the cost of undertaking duties and responsibilities.Action now.

She gets caught flipping houses. That's intentionally making a profit at the taxpayer's expense. Then, with her crazed lunatic smile and silly stick-on hairstyle, she tacitly admits that she was in the wrong by waving her cheque for £13k cap gains tax. EITHER IT WAS A SECOND HOME (pay
CGT) OR IT WASN'T (can't claim the second home allowance)

So now we've established that she owed CGT of £13k, where are the penalties? The horrendous interest charge that HMRC imposes? Hell, where are the police?

No. She's on telly last night nodding her caffeine-eyed-should-be-in-a-straight-jacket grin at Gord while he talks of reform and being very angry.

If that was one of us, we'd be in the slammer by now - never mind running the country...

A degree of confidence in the House of Commons being regained is the top priority.The alternatives of abstention or BNP voting are too dangerous to be considered as alternatives if one values freedom and democracy.
The Lib Dems have not come out of this smelling of roses but have sinned considerably less (even taking into account their lesser representation).Maybe the shocked electorate should consider them more seriously.
Any MP seeking re election will have to justify their expenses and any serious new candidate should submit an estimate to their voters of their expected expenses.

billyboy_az, you are mistaken, American politicians rarely go directly to public coffers, these Brits are just a shameful bunch of gluttons. I am sure of all the OCED countries, no politicians are as double faced and cheesy as British politicians.

After the devastating revelations of the past week, who would deny that the House of Commons seems to be inhabited by too many dishonest members? But they may not be alone in the Palace of Westminster.
An obscure organ of that august institution -- the Fees Office -- is manifestly incompetent and may also be guilty of misconduct.
The guidelines on MPs' expenses read out by David Dimbleby on the BBC's Question Time last night are perfectly clear. Yet, the staff of the Fees Office have reimbursed MPs for material claims that were unquestionably unjustified, therefore fraudulent, and contrary to any plausible intepretation of the guidelines by the Fees Office.
Do we understand from this that the staff of the Fees Office depended for their jobs on the very same people whose claims they were checking? If so, it's a derisory case of the gamekeepers being paid by the poachers.
It is obvious that, in future, MPs' claims for allowances and expenses will be administered and audited by one or more independent bodies. Is there not a good case for MPs' claims to be finally approved by the local office of the party that selected the MP in the first place? Surely they know best how much their MP is really worth!